A very troubling bill that gives the government expansive rights to eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls and tap into their emails without court-ordered warrants was hurriedly passed by Congress and signed into law as Capitol Hill rushed to recess this past August. The Bush Administration-backed "Protect America Act" was intended to sunset after six months, but now Democrats seem willing to extend the legislation by several years simply because they are afraid of being called soft on terrorism by the Republicans.
Based solely on the say-so of the Attorney General or the NSA Director, the bill gives the NSA the right to wiretap an American citizen if the agency believes that the citizen could be talking to someone overseas. (I'm not making this up.)
Democrats are slated to introduce a bill today that extends for years this and other expanded spying powers out of fear that the Bush Administration might succeed in getting the law made permanent. But the Democrats, who usually support strong civil liberties, are also asking for some concessions.
First, they want a "more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the interception of foreign-based communications by the security agency." Secondly, they want quarterly audits of the program by the Justice Department inspector general.
They also want this "special" court, a shadowy tribunal if there ever was one, to approve basket or umbrella warrants that basically give the government carte blance to eavesdrop on whole classes of people or types of communications in one fell swoop. Finally, they want the Bush Administration to turn over internal documents that lay out the legal rationale for the expansive spying initiative.
Once again, telephone companies are the best bet for stopping this legislation in its tracks (given that the Democrats won't). The House and Senate may end up fighting over a provision that will be purportedly included in the Senate bill, namely a section that grants retroactive legal immunity for the telcos who participated in the NSA's initial, illegal wiretapping program.
While the earlier temporary legislation legalized the NSA's initiative, it didn't provide any retroactive legal relief for the telcos, who have been slapped with numerous lawsuits for helping the government spy on its citizens. The new Senate bill would do precisely that and, as a consequence, might meet stiff opposition in the House.
Civil liberties groups like the changes that the Democrats seek, but still oppose the pending bills.
This still authorizes the interception of Americans' international communications without a warrant in far too many instances, and without adequate civil liberties protections," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies...Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:46 AM | Print | Comments (1)
AT&T announced this morning that it is buying spectrum licenses covering 196 million people in the 700 MHz frequency band from Aloha Partners, the Providence, RI-based broadband wireless company that is (so far) this single largest license holder of the invaluable, invisible radio spectrum real estate.
Aloha owns, and AT&T will acquire, 12 MHz of spectrum in 281 markets, including 72 of the top 100 markets and all ten of the top ten markets. Through its Hiwire subsidiary, Aloha has been testing the high-powered spectrum (far more efficient for delivering high-bandwidth content such as video over longer distances) in Las Vegas for the mobile delivery of fully streamed, multiple cable channels including seven channels from Discovery Communications, six channels from MTV networks and two channels from Turner Broadcasting, among other TV programmers in the test-bed line-up. Aloha is also testing wireless broadband delivery over its spectrum in Phoenix.
Aloha amassed this spectrum during the FCC's auction of "lower band" 700 MHz spectrum in 2001 and 2003, and through subsequent acquisitions of other 700 MHz license holders. The next round of 700 MHz auctions, the upper band auctions, has turned into a mighty fight between Google and the mobile carriers, particularly Verizon, over the degree to which the spectrum will be closed or open to various content, application or handset technology providers.
However the open access issues work themselves out, with this deal AT&T is now the single largest owner of 700 MHz spectrum in the nation and is poised to become a potent force in mobile broadband communications. What happens to Aloha is less clear. Based on the press release, it sounds like AT&T is buying all the spectrum the company owns. This probably means the two top executives, Charles Townsent and Scott Wills, along with their backers, walk away rich, happy and unemployed.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:38 AM | Print | Comments (0)
At long last Google has taken a major step toward monetizing it's $1.65 billion YouTube acquisition. The search giant announced this morning the launch of "video units," a program that allows websites to embed relevant video content from YouTube in customizable players and get paid in AdSense revenue. Both video providers and AdSense partners will get to share in the ads that Google sells, although just what the splits will be are still unknown.
Unfortunately, someone forget to tell the relevant engineers about this breakthrough product. My attempts to create "video units" for this blog were a bust this morning because the option to select "video units" from the AdSense set-up page was nowhere to be found on my account, even though I "linked" my YouTube account and AdSense account by using the same email address.
Nevertheless, I assume once Google works out the kinks, video units will be a big hit and a gushing new revenue stream for the company. But, and it's a big caveat, the success of video units will depend on the number of video providers that participate and the scope of videos they provide.
Google claims it has lined up 100 media companies to distribute their videos this way, but none of them are the biggies. Among the content providers named are Expert Village, a DIY video company, Ford Models, Extreme Elements, which creates videos about extreme sports.
Once the program gets into full swing, I suspect that thousands of companies will want to participate and content selection will mushroom. Google won't need Viacom or NBC-U or any other major entertainment company to participate in order for it to generate revenue.
There are countless organizations, companies and even government agencies probably eager to monetize content sitting in the vaults. News outlets, for example, are probably itching to make money off of video content that quickly gathers dust and Google is reportedly working on a plan with Dow Jones, as well as Conde Nast, BMG Music and others.
It's a smart move. No wonder Google's share price has now topped $600.
Update: Wow, the chorus of naysayers on this is almost deafening, and it makes me wonder why, although I can't even hazard a guess. Om calls the new program "AdSnore" and complains that the list of content suppliers is too short and predicts that the relevancy of the videos will miss the mark. Nick Carr offers an even more dismissive take, suggesting that what he suspects will be code-heavy videos might even cost somebody his or her life (picking up on an early Google contention that text ads saves lives).
I wonder how many people in the throes of a medical emergency have rushed to a health care information site only to find themselves helplessly waiting for some big animated AdSense ad to load (and, as well, the Google Analytics code to run). Now, these poor souls are also going to have to endure the loading of YouTube videos and their accompanying ads. I can only hope that they've kept up with their life insurance premiums.
John Paczkowski repeats the warning about the code-heavy videos calling them "behemoth video ads."
Google Blogoscoped and several other commenters complain about the flashy, obtrusive nature of the new offering.
In short, a lot of people are predicting that this will be a flop. Is there something in the water? Assuming that Google doesn't gum up the ads with so much code that it slows down web page loading, and assuming that Google lines up a lot more content providers (which it will), enough to provide a steady stream of relevant videos, why wouldn't this service take off? Why won't users want to watch a relevant video, or even one that is mildly irrelevant?
After all, videos are compelling, much more so, at times, than the written word or still images. A news report from CNN, let's say, on Gary Forsee's ouster at Sprint-Nextel would be perfect and probably much-watched on a site dealing in telecom matters. The site gains, CNN gains and Google gains.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:52 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
